U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 14— MISCELLANEOUS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER XLI— MENOMINEE TRIBE OF WISCONSIN: RESTORATION OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION

25 U.S.C. § 903d

Omitted

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar

[omitted]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1978–2004 · leading case: John Mark Latender v. Thomas Israel, Warden
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
John Mark Latender v. Thomas Israel, Warden (1978) ca7 · cites it 2× “In the Menominee Restoration Act itself, 25 U.S.C.A. § 903d(d) (1978 Supp.), Congress sought “to assure that the provision of necessary governmental services is not impaired as a result of the transfer of assets .”
Sturdevant v. Wilber (1979) wied “First, they urge that such agreements are authorized by 25 U.S.C. § 903d(d), which provides: “The Secretary [of the Interior] and the Menominee Restoration Committee shall consult with appropriate State and local government officials to assure that the provision of necessary…”
Wisconsin v. Stockbridge-Munsee Community (2004) wied “Pursuant to the Menominee Restoration Act, 25 U.S.C. § 903d(c), upon approval, the property would be added to the Menominee reservation.”
— 25 U.S.C. § 903d(c) — 1 case
Wisconsin v. Stockbridge-Munsee Community (2004) wied “Pursuant to the Menominee Restoration Act, 25 U.S.C. § 903d(c), upon approval, the property would be added to the Menominee reservation.”
— 25 U.S.C. § 903d(d) — 2 cases
John Mark Latender v. Thomas Israel, Warden (1978) ca7 “In the Menominee Restoration Act itself, 25 U.S.C.A. § 903d(d) (1978 Supp.), Congress sought “to assure that the provision of necessary governmental services is not impaired as a result of the transfer of assets .”
Sturdevant v. Wilber (1979) wied “First, they urge that such agreements are authorized by 25 U.S.C. § 903d(d), which provides: “The Secretary [of the Interior] and the Menominee Restoration Committee shall consult with appropriate State and local government officials to assure that the provision of necessary…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.